Re: DD correctly emulated by HHH --- Totally ignoring invalid rebuttals ---PSR---

On 3/4/25 8:52 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/4/2025 3:14 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/4/2025 2:58 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 1:33 PM, dbush wrote:

On 3/4/2025 2:20 PM, olcott wrote:

On 3/4/2025 12:44 PM, joes wrote:

Am Tue, 04 Mar 2025 10:11:30 -0600 schrieb olcott:

On 3/4/2025 9:08 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.mrt.2025 om 15:17 schreef olcott:

On 3/4/2025 3:14 AM, Fred. Zwarts wrote:

Op 04.mrt.2025 om 04:07 schreef olcott:

>

DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly reach its own "ret"
instruction and terminate normally.

I wonder why Olcott keeps repeating that HHH fails to reach the 'ret'
instruction, where the direct execution or world-class simulators
have no problem to reach the 'ret' instruction of exactly the same
finite string as input.

The only valid rebuttal is to show all of the steps of exactly how DD
correctly emulated by HHH reaches its own "ret" instruction.

And that is exactly what Olcott does not show.

Likewise I never attempt to show exactly how all squares are round.
>

So, my claim remains: HHH fails to reach the 'ret' instruction, where
the direct execution and some world-class simulators have no problem to
reach it.

DD calls its own emulator when emulated by HHH.
DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when emulated by HHH1.
DD DOES NOT call its own emulator when directly executed.

>

DD always calls HHH.
>

>
Thus only has a pathological relationship that changes its
behavior when the code of HHH is replaced with an unconditional simulator and HHH(DD) is run

>
Well of course the behavior changes if you change the code

>
DD is the exact same sequence of machine code bytes
executed in three different execution contexts.

>
That would mean that no_numbers_greater_than_10 is the exact same sequence of machine code bytes executed in different execution contexts, and no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F can't reach its own "ret" instruction, therefore no_numbers_greater_than_10 is correctly reported as non-halting, and because it doesn't halt we can conclude that there is no natural number greater than 10.
>
Agreed?  If not, explain why the above is wrong.  Failure to do so, either in your next response to this message or within 1 hour of your next post in this newsgroup, will be taken as your on-the-record admission that the above is correct and that you therefore believe that no natural number exists that is greater than 10.
>

 Let The Record Show that Peter Olcott made the following post in this newsgroup:
 On 3/4/2025 7:34 PM, olcott wrote:
 >
 > It is not my stupidity it is your dishonestly using
 > the straw-man deception to change the subject away from:
 >
 > DD correctly emulated by HHH cannot possibly
 > reach its own "ret" instruction and terminate normally.
 And more than one hour has passed since this posting and he has not responded to this post.
 

Since you haven't posted answer to challenges for YEARS about your errors, you are just being a hypocrite.

He has therefore satisfied the requirements listed above for admitting the above asserted statement is correct.

And thus you admit by example that you have agreed that you argument is flawed an based on lies.

 Therefore:
 Let The Record Show:
 That Peter Olcott has officially admitted:
 That no_numbers_greater_than_10 simulated by F can't reach its own "ret" instruction, therefore no_numbers_greater_than_10 is correctly reported
as non-halting, and because it doesn't halt we can conclude that there
is no natural number greater than 10.
 And that he believes the above to be TRUE.
 

And you belive that strawman are valid arguments and that you disbeleive your own proofs that it is impossible for HHH to correctly simulate its input and return an answer.
And thus you claim that it does is just a lie.